1st If this equation has stumped the most brilliant of mathematical minds then what makes you think that anyone here is going to give you an
answer?

2nd If someone on here does give you the answer then how do you then feel justified in claiming that YOU have just solved the equation? when it was
clearly the person that gave you the answer that solved it?

A year later, at the point of defeat, he had a revelation. “It was the most important moment in my working life. Nothing I ever do again will be the
same.” The very flaw was the key to a strategy he had abandoned years before. In an instant Fermat was proved; a life’s ambition achieved; the
greatest puzzle of maths was no more.

You are saying that the half is simply .5, not half of the number right? I guess i could give it a shot with some theoretical defined values. 1 is 1/2
of 2, 1 +.5 is 1.5, which is still half of 3, theoretically each number is half of another number, and they all have the same value when determined
through another number, this equations goes with any real number. 11= .5 of 22, 11+.5 =11.5, which is .5 of 23.

Mathematicians are starting to talk about 2 different infinities, the infinitely large, and the infinitessimally small.

For those of us who are able to disprove Einstein's, non peer reviewed special relaivity theorem e = mc^2, (many don't realise that Albert Einstein
got his nobel physics prize for his quantum nature of the photoelectric effect paper, and that his special relativity theory paper was never peer
reviewed before being published, and is demonstarably wrong).
the value of infinity is well understood!

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats,
AND/OR
All cats are dogs!
Which premise is false?
With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.
(Google twin paradox to get afull explanation).

In fact infinityis the only value for c that does satisfy Einsteins e=mc^2 theorem!.

Had Einstein substituted his fine structure constant Alpha (from his nobel prize wining paper on quantum nature of the photoelectric effect) for the
universal constant C (later erroneously ascribed as the speed of light in a vacuum) in his special relaivity solution calculations, he would have
found his long sought grand unification theorem and been able to explain why:-

Why it is that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron
appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has
a "virtual velocity" of infinity.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137. :lightbulb:

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed measurements
of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the
electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of mass/energy
to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h." The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the
"alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and
h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete. It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and
space.

I seem to have got well beyond the original infinity question but with out understanding of Einsteins relativity error it's not possible to
understand infinity correctly.

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.
For example:
(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats,
AND/OR
All cats are dogs!
Which premise is false?
With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.
(Google twin paradox to get afull explanation).

I may not know a lot about science but I do know that this has nothing to do with Einstein. This is an example of Inductive Vs deductive reasoning
Are you saying the E=Mc squared relies on Inductive reasoning?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2) All
four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of Relativity,
the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result -
indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at
least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,
who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to
explain the negative M-M experiment. He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which
produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned. He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein,
using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity." Dr.
Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it
produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it
through a real and proper "peer review" process.

Einsteins e=mc^2 works to a near enough approximation in near earth space.

If you google "solar tea cup analogy" you wll get an explanation most likely for the problms involved in solving Mitchellson Morleys linear (note
not angular) light speed experiement and proving or not the existence of a space either.

It appears as tho there was a 3rd possibility never allowed for and that is - that there is a space ether, and that earth drags this space ether along
wit itmuch like a blanket and that the ether orbits at the samevelocity as the earths rotation which is why e=mc^2 seems to work in near earth
space.

Mitchellson Sagnacs later rotation analogue light speed experiements were not able to dispell the different velocitys of light measured so used the
fact that they were so small as to bestatisticlaly insignificant, to sweep them under the carpet.

Nothing could be further from the truth however.

e=mc^2 works well enough to be able to make reasonable approximations in near earth space - thus the nuclear blast you depict.

more on the speed of light. in the days of old (actually not to far back) Vacuum tubes powered our lives instread of transistors. Factually energy can
travel at nearly the speed of light. Transistors are much much slower. If today they built a giand tube computer it would be the fastest in th world.
Now for the facts about light speed.
1 we dont know for sure what it is.
2 We have slowed it to a near stop in a lab
3 if under current rules light speed would be infinite mass. If you were going light speed you would be everywhere and every timeline.
4 If the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate then after 13.5 billion years it far surpassed its given velocity. We invented the number,
do not forget that

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.